It's not enough that you won't answer questions and have a discussion.

I do actually answer questions. I've answered lots of them. I've also engaged in lots of civil discussions. But you have made doing so with yourself nearly impossible. On the contrary, you have avoided many direct and reasonable questions relevant to thread topics and also are quick to engage in insults and name-calling.

All of this is clear for anyone to see.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR

Now you encourage others not to do so as well?

I was simply advising another poster that it was probably a waste of his time to try and engage in civil discourse with you.

Libertarianism is so simple to understand, BR. I'm surprised you haven't opened your mind to it a bit more.

Talk to me 10 years ago and I was a hardcore Libertarian. Then I realized I actually give a shit about people and Libertarianism is a dead-end road in that regard. It assumes that people, under their own guises, will not fuck each other over. Did the economic meltdown not teach you anything? These billionaire hedge fund managers and executives at financial institutions literally packaged toxic loans as AAA rated investment devices. They fucked over multitudes of pensions who I believe are only allowed to invest in AAA rated funds. Greed fucked them over.

Now, the Libertarian retort is THE GOVERNMENT CAUSED IT BY HAVING LAWS THAT PEOPLE FOUND LOOPHOLES IN TO EXPLOIT.

My retort to that rests solely in the latter half of that statement. Greed motivates too many people in our society and they will exploit anyone and anything in that pursuit. Less regulation just means that those bastards will have an easier time fucking you. They won't even give you the courtesy of a reach around.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

No business has the power to force you to do or buy anything unless the government is complicit. The government is the enforcer standing behind the corporate "crime boss" threatening to break your kneecaps!

A truly free-market system (which does not currently exist in the U.S.) is self regulating. Greed is offset by the need to actually provide a good product or service at a fair price or be avoided and left to fail (like the banks and car companies should have been allowed to do).

Of course these big companies are going to walk all over us - there is no threat of failure to keep them honest.

Then I realized I actually give a shit about people and Libertarianism is a dead-end road in that regard.

This is a misconception.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR

It assumes that people, under their own guises, will not fuck each other over.

Actually it doesn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR

Did the economic meltdown not teach you anything?

I suspect the lessons you learned from it are incorrect. There are assumptions many have made about the free-market-ness of that whole debacle that are just plainly wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR

Now, the Libertarian retort is THE GOVERNMENT CAUSED IT BY HAVING LAWS THAT PEOPLE FOUND LOOPHOLES IN TO EXPLOIT.

That's not quite right. A more correct thing to say is that government created a moral hazard situation that led to much (though not all) of what happened.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR

Greed motivates too many people in our society and they will exploit anyone and anything in that pursuit.

And the ironic thing you fail to see is that includes power and control...and the more "legitimate" power and control you give to government over the lives of everyone the more that will be exploited "legitimately." Which brings us back to how much of what you're complaining about actually happened.

Hong Kong might be a close modern day example. The US from its birth to the early 1900's might be another.

I do think these examples are closer to the libertarian ideal in many ways, though certainly have their problems.

I don't think anyone claims that libertarianism can create some kind of utopia for all - just that it can produce the greatest degree of freedom for everyone to pursue their own ideals (as long as they don't involve aggression against others).

The US with slave labor driving the economy does not count. The poverty by the turn of the century invalidates that argument. Hong Kong has universal healthcare and does charge taxes. Doesn't count either.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

I do think these examples are closer to the libertarian ideal in many ways, though certainly have their problems.

I don't think anyone claims that libertarianism can create some kind of utopia for all - just that it can produce the greatest degree of freedom for everyone to pursue their own ideals (as long as they don't involve aggression against others).

Is the greatest degree of freedom the ultimate goal? Is that what determines the health of a society? What if that freedom also includes a lot of poverty? What if that freedom involves no social safety net? Are you telling me that this "greatest degree of freedom" is the most worthy goal a society can strive for?

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

We have talked at length of individual rights; but what, it may be asked, of the "rights of society"? Don't they supersede the rights of the mere individual? The libertarian, however, is an individualist; he believes that one of the prime errors in social theory is to treat "society" as if it were an actually existing entity. "Society" is sometimes treated as a superior or quasi-divine figure with overriding "rights" of its own; at other times as an existing evil which can be blamed for all the ills of the world. The individualist holds that only individuals exist, think, feel, choose, and act; and that "society" is not a living entity but simply a label for a set of interacting individuals. Treating society as a thing that chooses and acts, then, serves to obscure the real forces at work. If, in a small community, ten people band together to rob and expropriate three others, then this is clearly and evidently a case of a group of individuals acting in concert against another group. In this situation, if the ten people presumed to refer to themselves as "society" acting in "its" interest, the rationale would be laughed out of court; even the [p. 38] ten robbers would probably be too shamefaced to use this sort of argument. But let their size increase, and this kind of obfuscation becomes rife and succeeds in duping the public.

Quote:

What if that freedom also includes a lot of poverty?

In a truly free society, where people are allowed to reap what they sow and are protected from aggression, poverty could be the natural result of someone's actions or inactions. Right?

Quote:

What if that freedom involves no social safety net?

Such a "safety net" could and would be provided by the private sector, not the government.

Quote:

Are you telling me that this "greatest degree of freedom" is the most worthy goal a society can strive for?

The US with slave labor driving the economy does not count. The poverty by the turn of the century invalidates that argument. Hong Kong has universal healthcare and does charge taxes. Doesn't count either.

You're muddling a lot of things together. As long as you chose to do this the conversation cannot progress. No one claimed these to be perfect examples.

Are you telling me that this "greatest degree of freedom" is the most worthy goal a society can strive for?

Well, when we discuss libertarianism, we're talking primarily about the political structure of our society. Libertarianism does not address the sum total of society, morality, human interactions and relationships. It only addresses the political/governmental structure of society.

Your examples don't really come anywhere close to fitting the mold you are talking about though. Give me an example of something red. Show me something green and sure, it's closer than violet. But it's still not red. (closer with regard to the electromagnetic spectrum)

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

Your examples don't really come anywhere close to fitting the mold you are talking about though. Give me an example of something red. Show me something green and sure, it's closer than violet. But it's still not red. (closer with regard to the electromagnetic spectrum)

So you don't agree with the examples because they don't fit your criteria as good examples. OK. Fine.

Well, when we discuss libertarianism, we're talking primarily about the political structure of our society. Libertarianism does not address the sum total of society, morality, human interactions and relationships. It only addresses the political/governmental structure of society.

Good point. This is actually one of the reasons I am drawn to it. It attracts people of all different backgrounds, religious persuasions, etc.

I say show me a pig, you show me an dog. I suppose that's closer to a pig than an alligator. But it's still not what I asked you to show me.

So you don't agree with the examples because they don't fit your criteria as good examples. OK. Fine.

There are no perfect examples. But that doesn't mean the ideas are invalid, only that they have not been fully tried. The examples we do see where countries move closer to more economic liberty and broad way, we see increasing prosperity and well-being for everyone (though sometimes at different rates and in varying degrees.)

There are examples today of countries that move away from heavy, strong, tightly controlled, centralized government control over the economy...and as they move away from that model (liberalization) they start seeing things getting much better. but there ar no perfect examples. Things aren't always done in perfect ways. There are periods of adjustment and disruptions. What's interesting is that your questions suggest an expectation of perfection and Utopia while accusing those you disagree with (like me) of being Utopians. I'm definitely not a Utopian.

Good point. This is actually one of the reasons I am drawn to it. It attracts people of all different backgrounds, religious persuasions, etc.

Except that's the problem with libertarianism. You can't separate out society from the politics. They are necessarily intertwined. If someone, through his own mistakes or stupidity, cannot afford a home to live in or food to eat, I feel it is society's obligation to step up and provide for him. Private charity is no guarantee. Hell, look at the homeless people in Los Angeles and how many fucking churches there are at every other street corner. The government NEEDS to step in and help take care of these people. We need to pay more taxes to do so, not fewer.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

My utopia does not exist, but there exist countries that are much closer to mine than to yours. Scandinavian countries are wonderful. Hong Kong is wonderful and more of an example of my point of view than yours. There's a few right there.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

My utopia does not exist, but there exist countries that are much closer to mine than to yours. Scandinavian countries are wonderful.

And these are not all they seem to be and the story behind each of them is much more complex and much less Utopian and much less of a validation of your socialist-leaning philosophy than is commonly believed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR

Hong Kong is wonderful and more of an example of my point of view than yours. There's a few right there.

Now that's just plain wrong.

One possible measure of the degree of "libertarian-ness" of a country would the the Index of Economic Freedom. It is not a perfect measure, but it is a mostly objective index and ranks economic freedom. Hong Kong is on the top of this list.

I've tried to have this discussion with tonton also. You want to claim the because a country has a some social services (e.g., universal healthcare) it is pretty much socialist. Well, that might be considered a socialist policy or program the picture is bigger and more complicated than that. Economically-speaking Hong Kong is one of the freest "countries" in the world. Granted this is only one measure, and you are free to present some other measure we could use to try and objectively analyze and compare the relative "libertarian-ness" or "socialist-ness" or whatever-ness. I'd love to see those. I think there are a wide variety of indexes that could be discussed, critiqued, and utilized to compare countries based on the different goals and what's important to you.

Libertarianism is so simple to understand, BR. I'm surprised you haven't opened your mind to it a bit more.

Yes back in the 70's when I was a member I understood it perfectly. That's why I left.

Victimless crimes, the rights of the individual, and taxation is theft. Yes I'm very familiar. The only problem is they didn't have a solid plan that I felt would work ( in the real world ) with these items. When I asked a question about it I seemed to get the same response I get here. So I left.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

I believe he's referring to the initiation of force or aggression as opposed to defensive "force".

Tell us where the initiation of aggression, force or coercion is morally legitimate other than in a defensive situation (i.e., using force to stop someone that has initiated an aggressive, forceful or coercive action)?

You're kidding, right? Every law coerces you to obey with threat of legal action (force), if you do not. Every law. The enactment of law is the initiation of force.

I would say, obviously, Denmark, Sweden, Norway... but then you'll turn around and defend yourself by being imtellectually dishonest and saying that those nations are all rich ONLY because of oil. So instead, I'll say The Netherlands; Belgium. Of course you'll again be intellectually dishonest and say those nations are only successful at using the social democratic model because they're small, or because they're homogenous, or because of tourism... or whatever other intellectually dishonest excuse you can come up with.

I'll even do your homework for you, and show where the Scandinavian model has failed. Iceland. But there are easy fixes to a system to prevent the Iceland effect.

Now, instead of arguing with regard to my answers, which I know you are itching in your pants to do, you give us your example.

You're kidding, right? Every law coerces you to obey with threat of legal action (force), if you do not. Every law. The enactment of law is the initiation of force.

Yes...and some laws are the codification or elaboration of the core principle of protecting someone's basic rights of life, liberty and property (these laws simply spell out in detail what you are and aren't allowed to do with regard to these basic rights)...and some are just telling some people to do (not not do) something that some other group thinks they ought to do (or not do).

Libertarianism is so simple to understand, BR. I'm surprised you haven't opened your mind to it a bit more.

Yes, Libertarianism is very simple to understand. It's also very simple to understand why it fails. It fails for the exact reason state communism fails. It relies on the honesty, empathy and goodness of those in power to make it work. It ignores the existence of greed and corruption and selfishness. There is no Utopia, not in Communism, and not in Libertarianism. The only model that can possibly succeed is a model where there is a mix of capitalism and socialism, with regulatory and democratic checks and balances in place to make it sustainable. This may not be simple for you to understand. But once it's understood, progress can be made to find the proper balance among those aspects.

'Simple' is definitely not something we should aspire to when the world itself is far mor complex, and needs far more complex solutions to problems.

Yes, Libertarianism is very simple to understand. It's also very simple to understand why it fails...It relies on the honesty, empathy and goodness of those in power to make it work. It ignores the existence of greed and corruption and selfishness.